get_workspace_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns a dictionary but does not disclose whether it has any side effects, requires a workspace to be initialized, or is read-only. Given the tool's name implies a read operation, the description lacks explicit confirmation of behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. Every word serves a purpose: stating the action and the return type. No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context. However, it lacks details like what 'workspace information' includes or how the 'project list' is structured. The agent might need to rely on the output schema for specifics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline 4 is appropriate. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema (which has no properties). It does mention the return type (dictionary), which is output-related but not necessary for the parameter dimension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to get workspace information and project list. It uses a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('APKTool MCP server workspace and current projects'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific project operations like build_apk, decode_apk, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_project_structure, get_apktool_yml). It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.